Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

I'm a purist, but I'm not an attack dog

Away back four years ago when John McCain was running for President, I took a certain amount of flak for saying that I wouldn't vote for him based on his position on human ESCR. He'd been a vocal proponent of it, had never changed his mind, and in fact that continued in a rather flagrant fashion right into the presidential race. I'm not going to recap all of that, but suffice it to say that I was not shy about saying, on blogs, why I wasn't going to vote for him, even to keep Barack Obama out of the Oval Office.

I argued then, and would argue now, that we conservatives need a line in the sand on particular issues, particularly issues of social conservatism. My biggest grief at that time was that my fellow conservatives seemed to have no such line. It was, "I'll vote for the lesser evil no matter who he is." I wrote pieces on the nature of a vote arguing that one should at least be willing in some sense to endorse a candidate if one is going to vote for him. None of this, "I'm going to vote for Hitler if the other guy is worse" stuff. Remember: You'd be horrified (I hope you would) to find a campaign sign for Hitler on your front lawn.

Okay. I stand by all of that. But by that same token, I think I need to be willing to take some flak from the exceedingly purist right for the following statement: I'm going to vote for Rick Santorum in the upcoming Republican primary. In fact, I'm not even remotely ashamed to be doing so. That's why I'm blogging it. In fact, I'd put a yard sign for him on my front lawn.

Don't bug me with whether he's electable or not, because frankly, I don't give a darn. Especially not in the primary. Primaries used to be about voting for the candidate who most closely represented your views. If and when he loses the primary, I'll make up my mind about whether I can in good conscience vote for whoever wins. That'll be then. This is now.

The purist case against Santorum is based on on several of his past actions. One is that he allowed his arm to be twisted by the party machinery into campaigning for the odious Arlen Specter against Toomey, a conservative primary challenger. Another is his voting for funding Planned Parenthood in Title X omnibus legislation. A third is his voting for the FACE bill.

Of these, the last is in my opinion the worst, and I would like to see him say that it was unconstitutional and wrong. On the other hand, it's a) water under the bridge, not the kind of thing that has much connection to future action and b) something he was probably bamboozled into thinking blocked only "violent" protestors and the like. So it was billed at the time. Not a good vote, but the fact of it in the past of a Congressman who is enthusiastically, not to say pushily, pro-life right now does not cross my bright line.

The funding for Planned Parenthood is not good, and he has defended voting for the bill in debates. What I would like to see is for him to be on-board with defunding Planned Parenthood in the future. Now that the campaign among pro-lifers has gotten going for that purpose, my guess is he will get on-board with it, despite his defensiveness about past votes. These omnibus bills are the very devil. They're a kind of cancer on our legislative life and no doubt have tripped up many otherwise good Congressmen. The horse trading that goes on is incredible, and they include a grab bag of stuff. He should reconsider his defensiveness, but his having voted in the past for one of these monster bills that, inter alia, includes funding for PP does not cross a line for me. Moreover, the existence of the Hyde amendments which allegedly block funding for abortions per se has probably been used by party whips as a successful argument to many a pro-life congressman to vote for such omnibus bills. It is only recently that pro-lifers have seen it as realistically within their sights to block the allegedly "non-abortion" funding that still goes to PP from government coffers.

The campaigning for Specter was to my mind, even at the time, a tragedy for Santorum. Yes, it meant that he didn't have the courage to say no. Not everybody does have that courage all the time. The pressure he was under was intense, and no doubt the action was portrayed to him as a necessary and virtuous thing, to keep a Republican majority in the Senate. I took a certain grim and probably wrong satisfaction against the Republican leadership from the fact that that didn't work out for them. At all. As strategy, it stunk. Plus it was unprincipled. But I felt sorry for Santorum. And he's paid. The voters punished him.

This is a candidate who speaks up loudly and clearly, right now, about both abortion and opposition to the homosexual rights agenda and who I believe will and would take action in those areas if elected to office. And he takes flak for it (and downright nastiness) from the liberal media all the time. He even gets barbs about it from at least one fellow Republican campaigning against him who has said that he "Can't stop talking about gay people." To my mind, that's a kind of recommendation. That is the kind of thing that pro-lifers and social conservatives have been wanting for a long time.

I'm going to vote for him. It would be just as cowardly of me not to say so because I've made my stand on the Internet with conservative purists and don't like the thought of what they might say or think about me as it would have been in 2008 for me to hide my refusal to vote for McCain.

Comments (88)

Of course one should vote for Hitler if the other guy's worse, campaign signs notwithstanding. In a republic, the voters are, in some measure, responsible for who gets elected. If, by refusing to vote for Hitler, I contribute to electing Satan, all I've done is to deny my own responsibility as a voter for my own government. Granted that in such a horrific case it might be time to consider whether the sovereignty of the people needed to be asserted in some non-electoral fashion, perhaps even by armed revolt. But the final point is that I *am* in small measure responsible for my government, whether I'm nauseated by my choices or not.

That said, I think your vote for Santorum is a completely reasonable one. Social conservatives face two main dangers in this election: (1) that Obama will be re-elected, and (2) that the Republican party will decide that social conservatives are irrelevant. A reasonable showing for Santorum in the primaries establishes social conservatives as a constituency the party needs to attend to; since (a) there's little to choose between the anointed front-runners (Romney and Gingrich) on social issues, and (b) Santorum is really unlikely to win nomination anyway, the question of how he'd perform in the general election is pretty much moot.

Come November, of course, either Gingrich or Romney has a better position with respect to intrinsic evils than Obama does. (Given Obama's consistent support for abortion, that's not hard to do--a candidate would practically have to promote unilateral nuclear war to be worse.)

Of course, there are no guarantees that my guesses about what will happen are correct. Indeed, statistics being what they are, I can expect that at least some of them are wrong. But they reflect my best judgement at this time, and all a voter is responsible for (precisely as a voter, at least) is to vote based on his or her best judgement at the time of voting.

I agree with you, Lydia, that we have to have a line; I don't think we'd agree where about exactly where it is, but I certainly have one. I too plan to vote for Santorum in the primary for the same reasons you outline above. It is a given in a fallen world that any candidate will have some things we don't like about his record, philosophy, etc., and we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Politics is a matter of alternatives. Santorum would not stand up to the establishment and supported Specter against Toomey. Santorum is opposed to right to work. Santorum favors an interventionist foreign policy. In his favor, Santorum does theoretically support the gold standard, and opposed the Wall Street bailouts.
Ron Paul has always supported defunding Planned Parenthood. I am supporting him.
Newt says he is now a Roman Catholic. I am concerned that Evangelicals tend to support the bad Catholic over the good Catholic. I can not figure out why more Evangelicals do not support Rick over Newt.

If Candidate A goes around getting, figuratively speaking, rotten tomatoes thrown at him for upholding the socially conservative position on marriage, and Candidate B adds to the rotten tomatoes by snarking that Candidate A "can't stop talking about gay people," I ask myself: Which of these candidates *stands for me* on this highly relevant political issue? Case closed.

"These omnibus bills are the very devil. They're a kind of cancer on our legislative life and no doubt have tripped up many otherwise good Congressmen. The horse trading that goes on is incredible, and they include a grab bag of stuff. He should reconsider his defensiveness"

Surely that is true but surely more congressmen should vote "no." Having a handful of "noes" (Ron Paul's plus a few other responsible legislators and statesmen that we can point to to prove they aren't all scoundrels) instead of only one (that of "Dr. No" himself) would be a leaven in the system.

It's tempting to wish for a constitutional amendment but I don't think it would work and it might be used to justify other unforeseen abuses.

I feel really hopeless in regards to the coming national elections. I also hope all of you will concentrate your attention and effort on the local elections, since they will prove to be more important in the long run.

I'll support the Ron Paul slate in the caucus and vote for the Republican nominee in the fall.

I can't support Santorum because of his hawkish interventionism. Foreign policy is the area where POTUS has the greatest influence and for my money, Santorum's foreign policy is not just wrong but exactly wrong.

At the risk of derailing the thread, that's why I'm going to vote for "Don Tall." He is just as good on the life issue as Santorum, and he is the only one who is also right about getting us out of the Globo-Cop business.

And he's also the one who snarked about Santorum's stance on marriage. See my comment above. I don't believe a transubstantiationist theory of candidate essence. If the candidate's "visible accidents" aren't looking very so-con to me, then I don't believe in an "invisible substance" that is really coming from where I'm coming from. If some candidate is right now fairly conspicuously distancing himself from social conservatives (and that at the moment of the primary!) while another candidate is conspicuously standing up for them, it's the second who represents me. And being a conspicuous social conservative on these domestic issues is trumps for me. I'm not an enthusiastic interventionist either, but the fact that I'm not an enthusiastic interventionist is not trumps.

And being a conspicuous social conservative on these domestic issues is trumps for me. I'm not an enthusiastic interventionist either, but the fact that I'm not an enthusiastic interventionist is not trumps.

I understand, and that's where I suspect we differ on where to draw the line. For me foreign policy is the trump card for POTUS. Constitutionally, that's job #1 for the office, so any candidate who gets it wrong is out of the running for me. I weigh Congress-critters and local pols differently.

The minute I heard many months ago that Santorum was running for President, I knew I would support him because of his pro-life record and his commitment to the spiritual and economic health of the American family. There were other considerations/policies, but this guy has stood up bravely in Congress and the Senate and taken some heavy duty artillery for what he believes and for the fight he will make on behalf of those beliefs.

The proof of just how important his commitment is can be seen in the reaction to him by the Left, particularly pro-aborts and the gay rights crowd. I have seen things on Facebook by "friends" that would turn your stomach. The level of depravity is some of the worst I have ever seen. Thoughout this race, in spite of his always trailing behind Mitt and Newt, the focus by the sexual politics crowd has been on Santorum.

Now if you believe in spiritual warfare, win or lose, you can come to no other conclusion than that Rick Santorum should be our man.

I'm with CJ. Santorum's foreign policy isn't just wrong, it's insane. The president has far too much control over foreign policy to let a guy like that in. It won't matter, because he won't be the nominee.

I suspect Obama will win, but I know where my line in the sand is: Newt Gingrich. If he is the nominee then I am voting for Obama.

By the way, for the record (but I won't let this become a sub-thread), my above comment about my not being an enthusiastic interventionist was not meant at all as an endorsement of the positions about and relevant to foreign policy of "Don Tall." In the foreign arena, there are a lot more positions than pro-interventionist/anti-interventionist. But I don't intend to detail my own here and now.

Just curious, given Lydia's discussion of "lines in the sand", why would you actively vote for Obama (who supports objectively evil policies) rather than just not sit out the election if Newt was the nominee?

No facetiousness, though I probably won't vote for Obama. It makes no difference as WA is solidly blue, so why waste the time? But one thing that has irked me about this election is the apocalyptic terms that conservatives like to use when talking about it. What in the world is so horrible and evil about Obama? Yes, Obamacare is stupid, but then so was Medicare Part D. Yes, the deficit is high, but Republicans have negative credibility on that score. Yes, his immigration policy is failure, but the Republicans have negative credibility on that score as well. Yes, he started a stupid war, but do we even need to go there? When all's said and done, Obama is...mediocre, but better than one would expect given the level of rabid hatred. The worst thing about Obama is his banana republic Attorney General.

This is not a watershed election, a turning point in the nation, a point of no return, a get-Obama-out-of-office-at-all-costs moment. it's just an election, much like the last 5 or so. If a phony like Newt Gingrich is all the Republicans can give me, then the sooner the Republican party goes down in flames the better. I mean, Newt Gingrich...for God's sake, is there a bigger has-been? Anyone want to start a colony on the moon? Thanks to the debate yesterday I found out Gingrich is against decline. "Against decline", he actually said that. Thank God somebody is! And then there are the issues of character. Just how many wives do you have to cheat on before a conservative won't support you? Mitt Romney's motto should be "and they call me a polygamist!"

No no, no Gingrich. We've all made a Charlie Brown joke about the football, but seriously, this has got to stop at some point.

Any conservative would have so many reasons for voting against Obama that they would choke him. O's policies are destructive economically, to the point of seeming deliberately so. He has contempt for the constitution and the limitations of his office and the federal government. He is gleefully homosexualizing the military. He gladly and ardently reinstated funding for forced abortions overseas. His immigration policy isn't just a "failure" but manifests open support for illegal immigrants and passionate opposition to states that want to enforce immigration law. His administration has sued states that tried to defund Planned Parenthood. His administration is so opposed to conscience in the medical area that they have gutted conscience protections on individual doctors and nurses and have shocked even Catholic leftists by their egregious demands on Catholic institutions. And on and on and on. But why bother with someone who can shrug his shoulders about Obama? If you can do that, that tells us where you're coming from.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is serious about shrinking the size of federal government. In fact, he's the only one left in the race even talking about it! The other candidates - including Rick Santorum - give lip service to cutting spending while at the same time talking about increasing military spending! This is nonsense. That's why they are so focused on taxes and not on the budget. For that reason alone, I'll vote for Ron Paul. Of course there are many more reasons to vote for him - he's the only one who predicted the housing collapse, he's the only one who advocates for real free markets, he's the only one who would close our foreign military bases and bring the troops home, he's the only one who would cut all foreign aid. I think, most importantly though, he's the only one who understands that government intervention is inversely proportional to liberty. This is where I part company with most social conservatives... I've come to understand that anytime the government gets involved in an issue, they will eventually have to choose one group over another. If we get the government to embrace Christian ideals at the expense of civil liberties for non-Christians, we may win the battle, but we ultimately lose the war. The principle of government intervention on behalf of groups is dangerous and can always be reversed in favor of the opposing group. It just depends on which group is seen as more viable (translated: "will get the politicians elected") at the time. This is why Dr. Paul's stance benefits everybody. Government, under his view, does not choose one group over another but rather treats all citizens as individuals - and leaves them all alone - so long as they do no harm to others. It's a different philosophy. As someone who whole-heartedly supported George Bush (and both wars), it's been a bit of a revelation for me, but honestly, the more I learn about Ron Paul's ideas, the more fervently I support him. He's has that affect on people!

Where you part company with most social conservatives is that you're not a social conservative, so you might as well not waste my time. Anyone who wonders what I'm talking about can see our back-and-forth in the thread on government "in the marriage business." You care so little about traditional marriage that your reaction to the homosexual "marriage" push is to ask me to "walk a mile in the shoes" of the sodomites who demand that their unions be called marriages. The heck with that.

I do find myself annoyed with people who pretend to share the concerns of social conservatives but tell us that a libertarian candidate (who has recently mocked some of those concerns as part of an attack on a socially conservative candidate) is really on our side. It's an insult to our intelligence.

I didn't forget abortion, I just don't think it's a big deal. It is better that abortion be illegal, and if we had a situation as in china where abortion was compulsory it would be a much bigger issue, but right now no one is forced to have an abortion so it doesn't have the same primacy. No doubt, for many here this is just obvious proof that I'm not actually a conservative, but so it goes.

Gay marriage is far less important than abortion. Given the recent discussions on here about the nature of civil marriage it's hard for me to find a reason to care about it at all.

Lydia's litany is a fine list of why obama is not a good president, to it I could add absurd equal opportunity shenanigans (see recent Pepsi ruling) and Cash for Clunkers. There is also the NDAA, allowing the government to assassinate us, and failing to do anything about the security state. Oh, and don't forget Fast and Furious. But the purpose is not to rate Obama on some absolute scale. Elections are games of alternatives, and on the big issues--empire, immigration, and debt--obama is no worse than his republican challengers, and is sometimes better. It is true, he started a stupid war in Libya, but at least he hasn't invaded Iran, syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and everywhere else that Santorum can't wait to bomb or occupy. He spends like a drunken sailor, but then one thinks of the Bush years... He is in favor of bringing most of the rest of the world here, but the republicans--even Paul--are no different. Since we are talking of lines in the sand, perhaps it is time to, you know, draw one? At some point the endless betrayal has to make even the hardest-headed National Review reader pause.

Matt, after you tell us that abortion isn't that big a deal to you and that homosexual "marriage" is an even smaller deal to you, do you really _want_ to be called a conservative? It would surprise me if you did.

(I'm a little interested that the half-expected attack by my fellow conservative pro-life purists on my decision to vote for Santorum hasn't materialized. Either all the purists I was thinking of like me so well that they are giving me a quiet pass on this or else none of them are checking [or commenting if they do check] on this blog anymore.)

What I am is a conservative Christian who became disenchanted with Christians attempting to use the government to do what the Church should be doing.

You care so little about traditional marriage

This is typical. If I don't advocate that the government step in and control who can "officially" get married, then I don't "care" about marriage. I've been married for 32 years. I don't believe in divorce. I care deeply about my marriage! I don't feel it is my place (nor anyone else's) to get involved in your marriage!

your reaction to the homosexual "marriage" push is to ask me to "walk a mile in the shoes" of the sodomites who demand that their unions be called marriages. The heck with that.

I was trying to help you understand the consequences of a constitutional amendment being passed that was contrary to your views about marriage. You take that as if I was somehow advocating for gay marriage. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was advocating against government intervention. You continually ignored my attempt to illustrate how government intervention can get ugly if you are on the wrong end of it. Why?

I do find myself annoyed with people who pretend to share the concerns of social conservatives

Oh now I'm "pretending"? You really are judgmental when someone doesn't see things your way aren't you? I'm not "pretending" to share your concerns, I actually do share them. I just don't see government as the answer. (I actually believe Jesus is the answer... sorry!)

but tell us that a libertarian candidate (who has recently mocked some of those concerns as part of an attack on a socially conservative candidate) is really on our side. It's an insult to our intelligence.

He mocked Santorum for wanting to codify anti-gay sentiments into law. Ron Paul doesn't believe that government should intervene on behalf of one group of American citizens at the expense of another. It really is as simple as that.

Matt is clearly a Fox News "conservative" and a typical American low information voter - only a member of that group would agree with the non-socially conservative parts of Lydia's list: he's just not a social conservative.

I applaud and fully support your decision to vote for Santorum - if only he or Gingrich would win the nomination, I would likely entertain the possibility of God's existence.

Actually, Mr. Chucky, he said, "He can't stop talking about gays." Gosh, that's deep. All about government intervention 'n' stuff. Actually, no: It's just a straight-up leftist implication that somebody who doesn't agree with homosexual "marriage" (which is what Santorum's position is) and who answers a constant barrage of questions from the homosexual lobby is somehow a "hater." You're a fool if you can't see that implication of sneering that Santorum "can't stop talking about gays."

The homosexualists are the ones on the attack. No conservative likes to talk about homosexuality. But if they are going to continue to try radically to reshape our society in line with their agenda, then we'll keep talking about it and keep talking about it and fighting back. No, we won't shut up.

You're a fool if you can't see that implication of sneering that Santorum "can't stop talking about gays."

You really don't understand Ron Paul's position!

First, he was talking to Jay Leno - a comedian - and he was giving a tongue-in-cheek answer.

Second, a politician only talks about gays when they are advocating either for or against "gay rights". Ron Paul doesn't talk about gays because he doesn't believe groups have rights. Only individuals have rights and it is the government's duty to ensure that all of these individual rights are protected. No group has the "right" to violate the individual rights on another American. So when Ron Paul says a politician "can't stop talking about gays", he's warning of the government intervention to come (he would say the same thing of a leftist politician advocating for gay rights). I'd recommend reading a book entitled "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek if you want to understand the dangers of central planning and the weighing of one groups rights versus another. It's a real eye opener!

Third, why do you continually avoid the implications of advocating for government intervention into your pet issues? "The heck with that" and "Phooey on that" are the extent of your comments on the issue. That's telling as well.

Three right-liberals of varying degrees and a libertarian. I'll be sitting this one out. Not that it matters, as my state has a late primary. The issue tends to be decided long before it gets to us. Even a protest vote for RP won't do much good in early May, if it would at all.

No al, once again you are wrong, but I suppose you were really only trying to call conservatives stupid in a roundabout way, so mission accomplished.

I usually refer to myself as a social conservative, because of habits and attitudes, but nowadays that term is so narrowly defined that it refers only to those who have signed on to a specific political agenda, with a nationwide abortion ban being the prime directive and anti-gay marriage being the second most important thing. In that sense, I'm not really a social conservative.

I usually refer to myself as a social conservative, because of habits and attitudes, but nowadays that term is so narrowly defined that it refers only to those who have signed on to a specific political agenda, with a nationwide abortion ban being the prime directive and anti-gay marriage being the second most important thing. In that sense, I'm not really a social conservative.

It's not that social conservatism is narrowly defined, it's just that the two issues occupying the spotlight in this generation are homosexual marriage and abortion. And they are in the spotlight because the Left is determined to put the final nail in the coffin of the American Family thereby insuring the death of the Republic as it was intended because the Founders assumed the autonomy of the family as it was defined for thousands of years.

In the case of Rick Santorum's seemingly unbalanced focus on those two issues, one would have to pay attention to the interviews and town halls he has done during which he is primarily asked questions about those two issues. Forcing him to answer controversial questions provides the Left and Libertarians the opportunity (or so they think)to use him as an example of an out-of-touch, backwards, control freak who can't stop thinking about all the sex going on out there. Unlike Romney, Paul, and to a much lesser degree, Gingrich, Santorum's beliefs about marriage, children (life), and homosexuality are forged deep within him as opposed to being a rotting plank buried in a candidates platform that can be forgotten or disposed of once the candidate succeeds at being elected.

Most impressive about Santorum is his willingness to plant his feet firmly in his faith and tackle those questions head-on without avoiding the fact that his answers are the result of his faith. There is nothing so disgusting as watching that mannequin, Mitt Romney, shuffle, squirm, and blarney his way through a hard answer about his core convictions on an issue, or watching the jolly little Libertarian claim it all means something to him personally, but heck let's leave it to the states. In my eyes he lacks courage. It's easy to tell a group of very naive and very soft college students that they deserve to keep their own money (who wouldn't like someone that preaches that gospel) and garner their adoration, then it is to tell them that there are consequences for libertinism and if we fail to be self-governing, then the slaughter of the innocents has to be stopped by someone. And you just can't redefine a relationship that is by nature un-redefinable (if that's a word). If the government, state or federal, can redefine the nature of marriage, they can redefine the nature of the relationship between children and their parents. The consequences would lay to rest the family forever.

I will go on the record in saying that I believe the Libertarian position on social issues is the stuff of cowards who don't have what it takes, spiritually, morally, or intellectually, to define and defend those social issues.

"I usually refer to myself as a social conservative, because of habits and attitudes, but nowadays that term is so narrowly defined that it refers only to those who have signed on to a specific political agenda, with a nationwide abortion ban being the prime directive and anti-gay marriage being the second most important thing. In that sense, I'm not really a social conservative."

My apologies. I thought I had properly highlighted this comment from Matt.

When it gets to Santorum, in fairness, it's actually Leno who says, "And Santorum, it seems like gay people OMG that's the end of the world, he just can't stop talking about them." Paul laughs (a bit nervously it seems to me), then says, "Yeah gay people... and Muslims" (because Paul had just said Bachmann hates Muslims).

So yes, the context was light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek, and yes Leno started it in this particular case, but Paul did go along with it.

Just based on what he's said in this thread I'd guess he's a Paleo-Conservative. No slight intended. I learned the hard way that "Conservative" at W4 does not necessarily mean Conservatism of the Reagan stamp, which is roughly what most mean in the U. S. who call themselves that.

I'm embarrassed to say I've never read Hyek's RTSurfdom so I'm going to do it next week to know for sure, but the problem with quoting verbatim many of the old-school conservatives from 40's is that many of these important books had important flaws too that need to be acknowledged. Instead the authors are treated like the Pope. I forget if it was Hayek, perhaps, but some of these guys went so far as to consider the theories of John C. Calhoun in their attacks on the New Deal. I think attacking the New Deal without veering into Calhounism is not at all hard, but I give a pass to those who lived during the dark days if they couldn't see that. But many Conservatives who quote these guys today seem to agree with Calhounism substantially, and this is Conservatism in the old sense of "defend the status quo or what used to be by all means at any cost," not modern Conservatism at all.

From what's been said here I think he's in the same camp as Nice Marmot who is pining for Pat Buchanan. No slight to either, but I'm just saying its a clue to the Paleo. I think we're talking about a Buchanan Conservative stripped of the social Conservatism. A Calhounite. Where is the mystery here?

Santorum's foreign policy interventionism is the big hangup I have with him. Won't another major military action further discredit social conservative causes and energize the worst, most successful elements of the left?

I was surprised how much I warmed up to Santorum in the debates, at least when he wasn't talking about foreign policy. I'm not sure there are many "Reagan Democrats" left for him to appeal to though.

I also think the NYC GOP major donors who pushed through SSM will abandon him or even try to destroy him in the general election if he gets the nomination.

Santorum does have a few peevish moments which his detractors will amplify.

I'm increasingly disappointed in Ron Paul for adopting liberal talking points and positions on things like DADT. I hope his son diverges from his father on these points.

Gingrich's success confuses me. I wonder if he has a lot of sympathy among late-in-life Republicans who themselves have made major personal screw-ups?

Gina, you're right about the libertarian nonsense. Telling a bunch of college kids they deserve to keep their own money is especially egregious considering that virtually all of them are spending either Mom & Dad's money, or the government's, or both, in order to be there at college, not their own. In the final analysis, libertarian theory CANNOT deal with the fact that children are dependent on the family and are thus dependent on society allowing, enabling, supporting the family to be a coherent social entity.

Chucky D, libertarians are people who grasped ONE principle of politics and think that it constitutes the entirety. For example, they always talk about individual rights (as opposed to group rights) but they never notice that they accept group rights anyway: e.g. that the group of non-murderers get the law to protect their right to be free of murder against the group of murderers who want the law to be silent about that issue, to not "choose sides". Or, the group of contract-respecters who want the law to enshrine their view of morality over the group of contract-breakers who don't value that standard. Libertarians are fine with the law enshrining one group's set of values over another group's values - when they don't have to think about it.

Libertarians are second graders who imagine that society and government can be morality-neutral. RP appears to imagine, like some second graders, that "nice" people should be nice without having rules to follow, and that's enough for society to work. RP would be a great leader for any country that doesn't actually need a government. For those countries that still, sadly, need a government, well they better get someone who understands human nature a little bit.

Matt, about this election being a watershed moment, a point of no return: your comments are inapposite. Traditional morality, and traditional principles of society, (like the family) are under direct attack from several sources in politics. These attacks may eventually succeed. If they ever do historians of the day will be able to look backwards and say of a point in time before their consolidation of success, "it was this period between X and Y years that they reached the point of no return." There is no knowing, until the future happens, how many chances and how many times God will give us a new opportunity to turn things around, but it won't be infinite: eventually God lets the evils we have been working up toward to actually come to fruition. To treat THIS opportunity to return to sanity as just one more in an indefinite line, with more to come after, is to pretend that the store of social strength is infinite, that carving the foundations away in blocks forever cannot bring the whole tumbling down on our heads. We don't know for sure if another Obama administration would be part of that period between X and Y years where we reach the point of no return, but we do know that another Obama administration would get us closer to that point, and would do nothing to turn away the attacks on traditional morality and traditional structures of society.

I strongly support Santorum wrt his pro-life position. I have more study to do to know whether I support him on other issues, and whether I think he can turn his pro-life general position into effective action on life issues.

Newt was a jerk in the 1990s, when he went down in flames due to hubris and making a virtue of an abrasive management style. Those aren't necessarily the worst of all possible evils in a politician, but they sure don't help. The problem I see is that Newt doesn't seem to have anything to recommend him above any other Rep candidate: nothing unique to make him stand out, and plenty of negatives to sink him.

You say, "I wonder if he has a lot of sympathy among late-in-life Republicans who themselves have made major personal screw-ups?"

I think you hit on one reason the "base" has warmed to Newt -- not necessarily because they themselves have made "major" life mistakes, but because Americans (I suspect because of our Christian sensibility, which still exists, especially for evangelical voters) believe in redemption and accept Newt's story -- he admits he was a sinner and made major mistakes and has used those experiences in life as learning experiences and to help him deal with the future. I also think the base likes the fact that (like Santorum at times) he actually articulates his positions with passion. Romneybot 3000 has difficulty being passionate about conservative (any?) ideas.

The reason I made my comment is because the biggest Gingrich booster I know is now a devout pro-life Catholic who is open about his own mistakes and his failed marriage.

Critics of democracy like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have questioned its "identitarian" nature -- people often only vote for "those like them" or those they can identify with -- not only in terms of values, but in terms of ethnicity, religion, personal background, etc.

If this critique is generally true, we could be in for some big trouble.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate in 1994 looks like it was around 33 percent - over twice what it was in 1980.

Those born in 1994 will be voting for the first time this year.

I fear this will play into certain unfortunate left-wing habits of envy or depictions of the normal as strange and pathological.

Lots more potential voters didn't grow up with a father in the house or lacked parents who were married when they were born.

How many will look at a picture of the Santorums or Romney families and think "Only rich people get married before having kids" or see an intact family as something that is foreign to their personal experience?

Obama is much more "like them" in coming from an unusual family situation, though he seems to live an admirable family life himself.

I don't think people support Gingrich because they identify with his marital history. After all, a lot of men who have been divorced understandably regard themselves as the victim (and no, that isn't an invitation to start a men's rights complaint session). They probably would say of Newt, "Well, at least I didn't act like _that_ kind of philandering jerk." I imagine there are a lot of people who would feel that way, and even resent him for his "trophy wife" (or wives).

I think people are drawn to him because of his willingness to go on the offensive with the media. He's a channel for conservative impatience and anger and for a desire not to continue to look like nice-guy doormats. I sympathize with the impulse. I just don't think it's a sufficient reason to vote for a candidate.

I think people are drawn to him because of his willingness to go on the offensive with the media. He's a channel for conservative impatience and anger and for a desire not to continue to look like nice-guy doormats. I sympathize with the impulse. I just don't think it's a sufficient reason to vote for a candidate.

I think this is quite insufficient an explanation, though it helps. He is the only national figure who articulates Conservative principles, on the understanding that Conservative means Reagan Conservative, and that is out of fashion now. He is able to take on the media in part because he doesn't think he has to filter what he says, unlike most. If Santorum can get into that tier then he'll be another, though he's getting a new look by many now. Romney knows the words but not the tune.

Tony, voting for Republicans will not return the country to sanity. I can't believe you really think that it would; you seem too observant for that. The only thing that is destroying the family in America is Americans. Unsurprisingly, when the unfettered ability to make choices is promoted as the height of freedom, people try to do just that. The republicans don't have any ideas here.

Also, Obama is a boring centrist. He's not some maniac who hates the family or traditional morality save to the extent that any of our boring centrists (like Romney) are. I know of no policy that Obama has initiated that aims at the destruction of the family or traditional morality. This is what I don't understand about the Obama-as-the-Beast theme that has animated the Republicans for the past three years: he's so unexceptional.

If people want to live traditional lives in traditional families, then there is nothing stopping them. Our problem now, as with abortion, is that they don't want to. There's no policy fix for this.

"If people want to live traditional lives in traditional families, then there is nothing stopping them. Our problem now, as with abortion, is that they don't want to. There's no policy fix for this."

There are plenty of policies hindering the traditional family and enabling the post-modern / feminst / self-destructive family. There are plenty of government-funded or government-regulated bureaucracies which promote alternative family life, either directly or indirectly.

Modern wants didn't develop independently, they are in many ways the product of intended and unintended consequences.

I agree that there are many policies that make it possible for people to live disconnected lives, where before it was either not possible or extremely hard. Liberalized divorce law is a good example. At any rate, Republicans are not going to change anything about it so who cares about electing them?

Santorum strikes me as being quite dangerous in his own right. He has absolutely no political common sense; he supported the bridge to nowhere stridently when the majority of Republicans were scurrying like cockroaches away from it. He supported Specter. He supported everything that was mainstream in GOP politics from 2001-2006 that lead to the P-O-R triumvirate. Even if he got elected, I wouldn't trust him to appoint a member of the SCOTUS who would do a damn thing positive. He simply doesn't inspire confidence in me that he could even properly vet a SCOTUS judge.

Well you've never responded to my more substantive arguments, in fact all I've gotten out of you (so far) are fits of emotion. I can see how that would get tiresome.
======================================
Gina:

I will go on the record in saying that I believe the Libertarian position on social issues is the stuff of cowards who don't have what it takes, spiritually, morally, or intellectually, to define and defend those social issues.

Of course by "define and defend" you mean "get the government on MY side against all those nasty non-Christians who are ruining the country". What you fail to realize is that these types of government interventions can always be reversed. I gave the example in the "Don Tall" thread of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "A union between two consenting adults" and showed how such an amendment would have consequences for the Church. No one was willing to acknowledge the consequences of government intervention in that case.

As for abortion, Dr. Paul and Rand Paul have both introduced legislation in the past to define the unborn baby as a "person". This would overturn Roe v. Wade with the stroke of the President's pen - no Supreme Court justices needed. So far, neither a Republican nor a Democrat controlled legislature has seen fit to vote on these bills. Where are all the "heroes" now?
======================================
Tony:

Chucky D, libertarians are people who grasped ONE principle of politics and think that it constitutes the entirety. For example, they always talk about individual rights (as opposed to group rights) but they never notice that they accept group rights anyway: e.g. that the group of non-murderers get the law to protect their right to be free of murder against the group of murderers who want the law to be silent about that issue, to not "choose sides". Or, the group of contract-respecters who want the law to enshrine their view of morality over the group of contract-breakers who don't value that standard. Libertarians are fine with the law enshrining one group's set of values over another group's values - when they don't have to think about it.

A murderer is an individual - not a group. The victim is also an individual - not a group. The first individual violated the rights of the second individual and should be punished accordingly (Dr. Paul is FOR the Rule of Law). Every murder case is unique - not all murderers and not all victims are alike. It's only when you start to define things in groups that you get into trouble. People are always advocating for mandatory sentences for "murderers" (the group). What this does is make every individual case irrelevant - all murderers are treated the same, all victims are treated the same - no matter the circumstances.
Of course murder is the extreme example but the same thing goes for any centrally planned society; people must be lumped into groups and the interests of one group must be weighed against the interests of the others. It is an impossible task with loads of unintended consequences.

Libertarians are second graders who imagine that society and government can be morality-neutral. RP appears to imagine, like some second graders, that "nice" people should be nice without having rules to follow, and that's enough for society to work. RP would be a great leader for any country that doesn't actually need a government. For those countries that still, sadly, need a government, well they better get someone who understands human nature a little bit.

That's about as silly a caricature as any I've seen. Was Thomas Jefferson a "second grader"? Seriously dude, you really need to do a bit more research into Ron Paul and the reasons behind his positions. It's all about the role of government - it's not about lawlessness. The government should have laws designed to defend every individual's rights - from other individuals AND from the government. This is not lawlessness - it's the RULE OF LAW!
It's just like how so many on the right misconstrue Dr. Paul as "anti-war". He's not against war - he's against unconstitutional wars. He actually believes that there's a process to be followed when we go to war, and his policy is: "Get a congressional declaration of war then fight the war to WIN it"! Every war we've been in since WWII has been undeclared, and every one turned into a lengthy quagmire of politically correct warfare. This is why he gets five times the donations from active-duty military than all the other Republicans combined!

Chucky, buddy, Tony and I at first did respond, at length, to your allegedly "substantive" points, in the other thread. We made substantive points of our own. You showed yourself either unable or unwilling to take in those points or respond to them intelligently. You are an ideologue and a zealot, and you try to hog threads for repeating your own cliches, which you mistake for profound points and arguments, ad infinitum. It's boring. It's distracting. And I'm not allowing it. This is _not_ going to turn into a Ron Paul thread. Perhaps you should consider what a poor advertisement you are being for him. This is _not_ going to turn into a thread on the overall philosophy of libertarianism. Bag it. Now.

You and Tony responded by giving me a "civics lesson" based on your misunderstandings of my theoretical constitutional amendment. When you finally understood what my point actually was, your response, and I quote, was: "phooey on that". I'll let others judge whose arguments were substantive and whose were emotional cliches.

Bucko, I'll be happy to let anyone else go to the thread on "Why the Government should be in the marriage business" and judge for himself, but please: Shush, already. This is my thread, and you are a champ-een threadjacker, and you are going to stop.

I went to Five Guys today, and three burgers and a large fry order for 3 people cost $22-$23. Inflation is an incredible thing. Pretty soon, we'll all be millionaires courtesy of fiscal and monetary policy that pours nearly minted money, "wealth" created out of thin air. Granted, a cappuccino will cost about $300, but what's that on a $900k salary?

Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he is the only person who gets how serious our domestic situation is and has a reasonable plan for drastically shrinking federal expenditures (so that we don't have to continue red-lining the printing presses at the mint). He may be kookish on many things, but Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are like the three stooges on domestic policy.

"From what's been said here I think he's in the same camp as Nice Marmot who is pining for Pat Buchanan. No slight to either, but I'm just saying its a clue to the Paleo."

I'm no paleo, unless you mean it in the extremely loose sense of "anyone who's not a neo." I'm a Kirk/Weaver guy, whose pining for Pat has mainly to do with the fact that he'd be better than any of the four currently on offer. I'm not and never have been a member of the so-called Buchanan Brigade.

My contention is that neo-conservatives and most of today's mainstream conservatives are not conservatives at all, but are in fact right-liberals. They are driving us towards the same cliff that the Left is, just in a slower vehicle. Until the mainstream right begins to realize that corporatism represents a huge facet of the modern omnicompetent state I'll have no part of it. As far as I'm concerned the GOP can crash and burn tomorrow; it's a plutocratic party now and has been since its inception, and the mere fact that it's anti-leftist is hardly a comfort.

This is not, of course, to say that the Dems are any better. In many ways they're worse. So please, no rubbish about "paleo-cons" being simply "paleo-libs" in disguise. People who say such things simply announce their ignorance.

Nice, I don't know why you say the Republican party was plutocratic from its inception. It was formed in immediate response to the Kansas - Nebraska Act, by those opposed to slavery. Even from the first days, people joined out of reaction to the impending change to make Kansas subject to slavery after a barely civil truce over the 2 decades before.

Matt, I agree that by and large the Republican Party is not the answer - not as represented by its current public standard-carriers, its platform, and how it goes about its business. I wasn't defending the Republican Party. I grew up in a family where my dad, very politically active, was nearly as frustrated with the Republican machinery as the Democrat platform and machinery, so I have never had any nostalgia for voting the bums in.

However, by and large the platform of the Demn Party - if carried out - would be ordered and directed more toward the destruction of traditional morality than most of the shenanigans of the Republicans would tend to destroy traditional morality - sometimes only by a hair's difference, but usually by quite a gap. But we don't each get to vote for the totality of the Repub, or Demn, or Constitutional Party, we only get to vote for specific candidates. In the final analysis, most Republicans are not really conservative, and many of those who think of themselves as conservative - IMHO - don't really understand conservative principles very well so they arrive at conservative-sounding ideas and conclusions in fits and starts, with admixtures of foolishness. To that extent I agree with NM. But I don't think that everyone whom he thinks fails in the ideal of true conservatism is a "right-liberal".

I agree that there are many policies that make it possible for people to live disconnected lives, where before it was either not possible or extremely hard. Liberalized divorce law is a good example.

Matt, the "liberalized divorce law" is a TERRIBLE example for your case. A marriage is, among other things, a contract. The liberalized divorce law - in particular no-fault divorce - made it possible for one party to a contract to break the contract with state approval, i.e. the state is now officially in support of unilateral contract-breaking. This makes it NOT possible for the other person, the victim, to live a connected life not on account of his or her personal choice or whim, but on account of state sanction of something that is simply immoral, but is also a violation of the rule of law in principle. This isn't "choice" to live without legally imposed moral rule, it is the failure to be free to choose to live _with_ the basic principles of law in support.

Mike, Ron P may indeed get some of the point of the seriousness of the domestic situation. Fiscally, perhaps. But I don't think he really gets the interconnectedness of social issues and, long range, how they affect the warp and woof of governance. The things he has said about abortion and gay "marriage" lead me to think that his kookiness is quite problematic. I haven't made up my mind yet on just how problematic, but it's beginning to look like that will be irrelevant by the time my state votes in primaries.

You don't get to be a Kirk/Weaver guy. It means no identifiable strain of politics unless you specify what positions you see of theirs that you agree with. Is it . . . oh I don't know . . . Weaver's agrarianism? They guy that coined the term "Paleo-Con" was Paul Gottfried in the 1980s, and it did include agrarians according to him. That would be a link, and that was the link I supposed.

My contention is that neo-conservatives and most of today's mainstream conservatives are not conservatives at all, but are in fact right-liberals. . . .

The neo-Cons are pining loudly, publicly, and repeatedly Mitch Daniels because they are unhappy with any of the current candidates. And the current anti-Gingrich wave is basically the Tea Party against the Republican establishment that has been going on for 3 years, and no-doubt will for much more. I'd easily agree with you that most of the "establishment Republicans" aren't sufficiently better than the Dems and this has been a theme for many years now, so I don't know why you're acting like some voice crying in the wilderness. You're _not_any_such_. Your ideas would be entirely unremarkable if not for the fact that you are pointing to some Agrarian ideal.

So please, no rubbish about "paleo-cons" being simply "paleo-libs" in disguise. People who say such things simply announce their ignorance.

I didn't say that '"paleo-cons" being simply "paleo-libs" in disguise', and as I said I was thinking of the agrarian connection and probably didn't miss Mr. Weaverite. And how are you not "announcing ignorance" by saying "neo-conservatives and most of today's mainstream conservatives . . . are in fact right-liberals". Who is being simplistic here?

Newt was a jerk in the 1990s, when he went down in flames due to hubris and making a virtue of an abrasive management style. Those aren't necessarily the worst of all possible evils in a politician, but they sure don't help. The problem I see is that Newt doesn't seem to have anything to recommend him above any other Rep candidate: nothing unique to make him stand out, and plenty of negatives to sink him.

Tony, I suspect that Newt has been defined by his enemies, his faults notwithstanding. Do you know what you say you know? I've always been frustrated by what I know about that time. Does anyone not know the charge about divorcing his wife in the hospital? Is it true? His family says no.

I wish I really knew more, but what I do actually know is this. He did a number of good things I can still remember that were massive reforms at the time. Then the Clinton impeachment drama had the bizarre outcome that Clinton was politically strengthened and the House lost seats in the next midterms. Now to what extent that was Newt's fault I don't know, but I think he was seen as the guy who should've seen that impeaching Clinton was a bad idea. Personally I think impeaching Clinton was a stand on principle and I supported it and still would. But it is a political process and no one knows the outcome. I think the Clinton impeachment is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. But Newt stood on principle and I would have too.

You say there's "nothing to recommend him," but that again just accepts the Democratic narrative. He led a successful takeover of the House and Dan Rostenkowski, a Chicago politico who was entirely corrupt and skimming money from the House postal operations fairly openly. There was a quite successful reform of social security, which Obama intentionally completely destroyed. He did things in the wild Clinton years such as travel to China to warn them that despite Clinton's fecklessness they were ill-advised to invade Taiwan. Newt did a lot of good things. He was a stalwart defender of the pro-life cause, and defends the later House Reps to this day (recently in a debate) that defending Terri Schiavo was not a Congressional overreach. I could go on, but I'm dissapointed that Reps don't have a more balanced view and simply accept the narrative on Gingrich. Whatever his merits as a candidate and a person it simply isn't fair.

I am not ignoring what you think you know, but saying that I don't think I know what you are alluding to. I think that is the narrative of his opponents, that most have largely accepted uncritically and the Clinton impeachment simply has gone down the memory hole. Dems are never going to say "Hey Clinton got impeached but we outfoxed the Reps and look how they remember it now! . . . Newt crashed and burned because of hubris! Ha!" But I find it amusing that no one remembers that and its relationship the the following mid-terms. Newt took the fall on that, as is natural. But I don't see what he did wrong. Sometimes you do the right thing and pay a price. He took it like a man. I don't see how his personal failings have much to do with the mid-term fiasco, but I know those who never believed in the 94 House Republicans were gleeful. And I'm sure they still are that Romney may be the nominee. You have to wonder how it is that Newt has all the right enemies from the Conservative point of view. I think there is some cognitive dissonance from '96 still echoing to the present day.

Tony, I was thinking liberalized divorce law in the sense of people being progressively able to obtain a divorce for a greater number of reasons, rather than having to cite something more traditional like adultery or abandonment. In the 50s, for instance, many wives claimed cruelty, which didn't necessarily mean outright abuse even then. This came into American law much earlier than the switch to no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, and the associated shift in the burden of proof that you cite, has of course been an utter disaster. My question as always is what the real cause is of the divorce rate. Is it that the government allows free-for-all divorce, or that a great deal of the American populace is simply so infantile that they can't manage their own lives anymore? And then I start thinking that maybe the great majority of humanity has never been able to manage their own lives, and that in the past perhaps an aristocracy of better men had both set examples and crafted laws that coerced them into following a sensible path. Of course, now we know that that kind of thinking is weird scary fascism.

I quite agree that the Dem party program is some nasty poison, but my issue is that we don't vote for programs, we vote for people. George W Bush, for instance, never should have been elected president. His term was an unprecedented disaster in every possible way, despite him being from the marginally better party platform. Gore would have no doubt done many stupid things, but it's hard to believe he would have brought ruin on the same scale. Moving to Obama, he is almost certainly a better president than John McCain would have been, even though on the merits he is not even as good as Clinton was. I can't in good conscience vote for a lunatic like Bush, McCain, Gingrich, or Santorum. Maybe not even Romney, but my hope is that Romney's lack of conviction will prevent him from launching any stupid ideological crusades, whether domestic or foreign. I'm probably wrong.

Paleo-conservative is close enough. I don't like the term, but like another hated term "traditionalist" I doubt anything better is coming along. Pat Buchanan would make a great president, though I'm not a huge fan of the economic nationalism stuff. I'll vote for Paul when the primary rolls around, because he is the only one even talking about reducing the size and scope of government anymore.

Okay, Matt, since I've let this go on with talking about your labeling: A traditionalist should not say,

I didn't forget abortion, I just don't think it's a big deal.

You said it. I didn't.

Also, your rhetoric above was dishonest when you said that for those of us who are ardent pro-lifers a nationwide abortion ban is a prime directive. I'm the one who said you aren't a social conservative on this thread, and I defy you to find _anywhere_ in any of my writings anywhere on the entire Internet advocacy of a nationwide abortion ban (by which I assume you mean a federal abortion ban) as my "prime directive." I just wrote a very recent post on opposing Roe v. Wade and my entire focus was on state legislation. On one of my colleague contributors' recent posts I disagreed with the opinion that the fourteenth amendment, by original meaning, protects the unborn child. And so on and so forth. The majority of pro-lifers in America would be dancing in the streets if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, fully and completely, and we could begin passing whatever abortion legislation we could get at an individual state level.

You must know this. Not a single thing that anyone has charged against Obama on the social conservative front in this thread has anything to do with his merely opposing a nationwide abortion ban. Every item has to do with aggressively pursuing a liberal agenda beyond what any other president has pursued, even to the point of astonishing his Catholic leftist allies by his vindictive opposition to the _usual_ previous religious exemptions for Catholic and other religious institutions. Could we maybe have a President who *wouldn't do that stuff*? Is it too much to ask that someone who has any pretensions to being thought a social conservative (and I continue to think it odd that you would even care to be thought one) not even consider voting for a president who does that stuff?

Get off your high horse. Whatever might be your reason for wanting, here, where it is a social advantage, to be thought some sort of social conservative, your own statements make that impossible. I doubt that you go about among your liberal friends or friends who are _not_ passionate about these issues earnestly insisting that, indeed, you are a social conservative. If you do, I wonder what arguments you would even try to make to them.

Well Lydia, your last post has me baffled. I honestly have no idea where you're coming from. It was your comment to the effect that I'm not a conservative (at all, not just of the social variety) that kicked off the discussion of what label to apply to me. My one contribution was the last post, accepting paleo-conservative, just so everyone can relax.

I also have no idea where you get this idea that I'm trying to be a social conservative. I even conceded earlier that according to the prevailing definition of such, I'm not. You obviously read that comment, so what gives?

In general, I don't care what you call me. If paleo-leftist is what you want, then have at it.

On abortion, I was making a statement of priority, not conviction. Abortion is not in my "top 5 issues facing the country" which is why I didn't include it. At heart, the problem of abortion in America is that lots of Americans want to have abortions. If they didn't, then there would be very few abortions. If you consider abortion to be very important, number one perhaps, then naturally Santorum or Paul are the only choices, and as you seem to consider Paul unthinkable, Santorum is it. We agree! Mitt Romney is not sincerely anti-abortion. We agree!

But others don't share this valuation scheme, and make their voting choices based on different criteria. All we ask is to not be expelled from the ranks for doing so.

My one contribution was the last post, accepting paleo-conservative, just so everyone can relax.

I really appreciate your accepting of a generalization in order to communicate. I did not intend it as an insult in any way, and I'm glad you didn't take it that way. For example, I don't know that any one has ever called me a "neo-conservative," but if they did I wouldn't object just to keep whatever hopefully interesting discussion was going on because that is probably the generalization that comes closest to fitting. At least since "Reagan Conservative" may be too general these days or maybe is even considered to be neo-Conservatism depending on what one is concerned about and how precise one wants to be. Without generalizations we can't communicate at all and we end up with nothing more than a series of "this-isn't-that" statements, which are often defensive ad-hoc moves to deny the obvious. As if any this really is that strictly speaking and without generalizing, without which no communication is possible as I said.

I always have that problem with Nice Marmot. He is only willing to define himself in terms of affiliation not generally meaningful, and without supplying the meaning. God only knows what a "Kirk/Weaver guy" is, or a disciple of Solzhenitsyn or any other non-political personal affiliation. So all I can do is supply the generalization myself, to which he'll object by any number of "this isn't that" statements. The only commonality I can see between those he claims to follow are that they think the U. S. was flawed from the inception in being based on false principles. I've called this "declinism" in the past, or a Henry Jamesian corruption thesis sort of thing. As long as there's an "original sin" narrative about the U. S., he's on board. The same with Rob G., another W4 combox agrarian from the past. So the discussion is always a Kabuki dance of implications. But I know the dance well enough by now that sometimes I just dance anyway with a nod and a wink that I know the game.

'They guy that coined the term "Paleo-Con" was Paul Gottfried in the 1980s, and it did include agrarians according to him. That would be a link, and that was the link I supposed.'

There is a certain amount of overlap but the groups are not co-terminous.

"I don't know why you're acting like some voice crying in the wilderness. You're _not_any_such_. Your ideas would be entirely unremarkable if not for the fact that you are pointing to some Agrarian ideal."

There is no Agrarian "ideal." My complaint is that mainstream conservatism and neo-conservatism are far too comfy with corporate capitalism and often refuse to see its depredations as a result.

'how are you not "announcing ignorance" by saying "neo-conservatives and most of today's mainstream conservatives . . . are in fact right-liberals". Who is being simplistic here?'

Both groups have by-and-large accepted, mostly without criticism, modernist/Enlightenment notions of liberty and progress; even though it fleshes itself out differently among them than it does among Leftists, the poison at the root is still there.

'The only commonality I can see between those he claims to follow are that they think the U. S. was flawed from the inception in being based on false principles. I've called this "declinism" in the past, or a Henry Jamesian corruption thesis sort of thing. As long as there's an "original sin" narrative about the U. S., he's on board.'

This is not my thesis. I do not believe that the U.S. was "flawed from its inception" in any notable way, but that there are certain elements present in the founding that "need to be watched," so to speak. And we're not watching them.

As far as decline goes, I don't see how you can look around at the culture and say we're not in decline. Unless of course you consider material prosperity and technological advancement to be the most important measures of "progress."

Also related to decline: I'd say that any national decline that the U.S. is suffering is at root cultural in nature. Politics is following culture, not the other way around. Hence, I don't necessarily see it as inevitable, although it certainly doesn't look good, and hasn't for quite awhile. I'm impatient with conservatives who believe that the problems related to cultural decline can be solved politically, in a top-down manner.

As far as decline goes, I don't see how you can look around at the culture and say we're not in decline. Unless of course you consider material prosperity and technological advancement to be the most important measures of "progress."

I didn't say we weren't in decline. That's a long discussion over adult beverages I guess. I'm just highly skeptical of such simplistic claims as you're making in your decline thesis. If you haven't read this, you have no idea what your own position is. There is nothing new under the sun. You follow a historical thought, and you should know about it if you want to credibly make such antique charges with any credibility.

The book surveys two centuries of pessimistic thought, and you'll find how that your complaint about "corporate capitalism" isn't new, but is in fact quite old. It's fine to agree with me in theory that our system isn't "flawed from its inception in any notable way" and seem reasonable I guess, but the claim you are making was in fact present at the beginning in the same form as you are making it now, though there seems to be no belief you could even possibly have that you won't deny in trying to avoid the conclusion, and no detail as to timing to substantiate your supposed belief otherwise.

Thanks for the book tip. I will read it. A reviewer says he identifies nominalism as a wrong turn. No argument there. Weaver got that right too.

I suspect I'll like the book, and I don't expect to find anything I don't already know. I understand the problems of modernity better than most. This does not mean I should accept condemnation of modernity, nor of the U. S. as some supposed exemplar of it however. There were problems with pre-modernity too. Thomas Sowell once said "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." Indeed. Choose your poison.

My question as always is what the real cause is of the divorce rate. Is it that the government allows free-for-all divorce, or that a great deal of the American populace is simply so infantile that they can't manage their own lives anymore? And then I start thinking that maybe the great majority of humanity has never been able to manage their own lives, and that in the past perhaps an aristocracy of better men had both set examples and crafted laws that coerced them into following a sensible path. Of course, now we know that that kind of thinking is weird scary fascism.

Which is ironic because modern Western states practice a form of benevolent democratic fascism, not capitalism or socialism. The average Western state, and this includes the US, has an economy and relationship between its large enterprises and state, that more closely resembles Mussolini's ideology, than Marx's or Rand's.

As we "declinists" grow weary of explaining, we do not condemn modernity as a whole, neither do we deny the existence of trade-offs. What we do reject is the notion that technological and economic advances, even when laudable in themselves, make up for what we have lost (and continue to lose) in terms of religion, philosophy and culture. While in many ways we have "advanced," on the whole we are moving in the wrong direction. The tradeoffs do not balance each other out -- we are not in a static state.

One could do worse than read Walker Percy on this. He was a man of science, a medical doctor who was very big on science, medical advances, etc., and in no sense a Luddite. Yet he was also a keen diagnostician of the "modern malaise," and was able to see these tradeoffs for what they were.

American as a traditional Christian nation is finished. There’s too many people (and, in particular, too many important people) that want fornication, abortion, sodomy, gay “marriage” , easy no-fault divorce, ubiquitous and wildly popular with the people soft-core porn and soft-core snuff films (also known as “Hollywood” films) etc. It follows that our best chance to have something like what we had is at the state and/or local level. So “Don Tall” the states-rights end-the-Fed advocate (not necessarily “Don Tall” the libertarian) is our best bet for pushing us in the direction we want to go even if we disagree with his libertarianism. As a plus, he wouldn’t force your daughter to get that VD vaccine.

I think this, in a nutshell, is the paleoconservative rationale for supporting “Don Tall.” I do not like libertarianism and I don’t know if I’ll be voting for “Don Tall” (Santorum is the only other candidate I’d consider – he might be anti-abortion and NumbersUSA gives him an A on the other issue I care most about). But I can understand why many paleoconservatives support him.

Santorum is extremely enthusiastic about the federal welfare-warfare state, Bruce. So much so that he is actually very scary in his own right. Of all of the Republicans left and Obama, he is probably the one most likely to lead us into a multi-front war that would literally bankrupt the federal government so hard that the only way to prevent a catastrophic collapse of core federal institutions would be to completely throw out all entitlement spending. On war, he's a neo-con through and through and he's written some shockingly anti-freedom arguments that don't sound conservative in the least. In particular, he has said that he doesn't believe that individual autonomy is excessive (which most here would agree with), but that individual autonomy itself is the problem.

The more I learn about him, the more I'm convinced that his administration, abortion and gay marriage notwithstanding, would be as catastrophic as another 4 years of Obama.

BTW, my superficial impression is that most “Don Tall” supporters don’t support Don Tall for the reason I mentioned above. I think that instances of more traditional societies at the state/local level would be an unintended consequence for most of “Don Tall’s supporters.

Regarding individual autonomy, I'd have to know what he means (I'm a big critic of individual autonomy). I might very well agree with him. For example, I think the family is a more fundamental and important social unit than the individual. When the interests of the two come into conflict, my family's interests and identity should trump mine as an individual. I could make similar arguments for my parish, for the church jurisdiction we belong to and for the Church as a whole. And also for our nation. I don't mean that these collectives obliterate our existence as individuals but, for me, they often take precedence over it. So I might agree with him depending on what he means.

As we "declinists" grow weary of explaining, we do not condemn modernity as a whole, neither do we deny the existence of trade-offs. What we do reject is the notion that technological and economic advances, even when laudable in themselves, make up for what we have lost (and continue to lose) in terms of religion, philosophy and culture.

I'm of the mind that any time you gain something you lose something. I think that is a very traditional view, one I learned long from Allan Bloom. But nevermind that.

First, the discussion isn't limited to "technological and economic advances," and we don't need to think these offset anything. There are other extremely important advances, which might well be independent of the technology and economics. Second, if whatever one thinks are the gains are not made up by what we've lost, and --stay with me-- can't be regained by anything other than anti-modernism, then why in the world *wouldn't* one condem modernity?

The question is not whether modernity has caused problems, the question is whether what problems that it has caused are necessary. If they are, there is no countering that could ever work, and no acceptable tradeoffs available. Anti-modernism is the only solution in that case, and religion, philosophy and culture will be of no avail. If that is true we are all morally obligated to condemn modernity.

You want to condemn modernity as a whole in tone, and in absence of any positive view that you wish to advance to counter it. Do you think that Christianity properly practiced can counteract the ills of modernity? If you really believe that you aren't condemning modernity as a whole, what positive views have you ever said might? Have I just missed that?

One could do worse than read Walker Percy on this. He was a man of science, a medical doctor who was very big on science, medical advances, etc., and in no sense a Luddite. Yet he was also a keen diagnostician of the "modern malaise," and was able to see these tradeoffs for what they were.

Well, what were they? I suppose your a Percyite now, so now I have to read that book to understand your view. There is no there there to your view, unless it is understood as purely negative, which sounds a lot like anti-modernism. There is no shortage of those who are "keen diagnostician of the modern malaise." Ever heard of Chesterton? Or ever hear me rail against scientism or those who have drank the kool-aid on any number of modern technological things? But they stop well short of the negative project that you seem to never tire of.

What I can't understand is how in the world you can think otherwise than that you're preaching to the choir that modernity has brought many ills that need to be counteracted at W4. Almost everyone here must get that. I can't think of anyone here that doesn't get that. I get that since I read old books out the wazoo. Countering pre-modernity, and now modernity is the project (among other things) of Christianity. Where we differ is to what degree and how to go about it, not whether there are problems. About this you are silent. You seem content to announce the fact that modernity is a problem over and over without any real qualification or positive contribution.

"if whatever one thinks are the gains are not made up by what we've lost, and --stay with me-- can't be regained by anything other than anti-modernism, then why in the world *wouldn't* one condem modernity?"

Regaining things lost isn't achieved by being "anti-modernity." But such regaining can be attempted by looking at how pre-modern society dealt with certain issues.

"I suppose your a Percyite now, so now I have to read that book to understand your view."

As far as I know there's no such thing as a Percyite. Can you possibly try not to be such a smartass? Trust me, if you want to dish out the sarcasm, you better be fairly well prepared to take some back. I can deal too, boy-o. Yes, I've heard of Chesterton. The advantage (if you want to call it that) is that Percy lived in our era and saw many of the same things we do.

"Where we differ is to what degree and how to go about it, not whether there are problems."

No, we differ in many cases on what the problems are.

"You seem content to announce the fact that modernity is a problem over and over without any real qualification or positive contribution."

It is useless to discuss treatment when the diagnoses are not agreed upon.

BTW, on the topic in question in reference to "corporate capitalism," you can't do much better than Laslett's classic, and should be read by all interested in the topic. I only recently discovered that he's written a follow-on book, and I look forward to reading that too.

Here's a quote I squirreled away in my evernote account when I read the first book, from page 20.

“Capitalism, then, is an incomplete description and historians’ language is marked by many other incomplete descriptions too … The historical distortions which come about from the uncritical use of ‘capitalism’ … have arisen from an obliquity which we an only now begin to correct. With the ‘capitalism changed the world’ way of thinking goes a division of history into the ancient, feudal, and bourgeois eras or stages. But the facts of the contrast which has to be drawn between the world we have lost and the world we now inhabit tends to make all such divisions into subdivisions. The time has now come to divide our European past in a simpler way with industrialization as the point of critical change.”

Toomey ended up voting for homosexuals serving openly in the military, thus voting exactly the same as Arlen Specter would have done. Perhaps Santorum had a little insight into what sort of "conservative" Toomey would actually turn out to be and therefore felt it easier to support the incumbent in that situation. And, as Mrs. McGrew notes, Santorum has already paid for that fully. At present, the two senators from Pennsylvania are Toomey (who ended up getting the seat) and Casey, the man who replaced Santorum.

"The time has now come to divide our European past in a simpler way with industrialization as the point of critical change"

I think you will find that most conservative critics of capitalism are in fact critics of industrial/corporate "late" capitalism, not capitalism understood simply (i.e., free markets, small business, etc.)

"This is to critique something, rather than merely condemn it, which is unhelpful. If only you'd attempt to do that."

I'd argue that there are certain features of modernity, necessary ones in fact, that deserve condemnation, not just critique. Its Rousseauian anthropology, for instance. True conservatives can make no peace with that element.

Bonifacius, thanks for taking us back to the topic of the actual post. I didn't know that about Toomey and definitely condemn that position. (According to La Wik, it wasn't a vote but a statement of support while senator-elect.)

However, I will say that seems to be one of the few bad apples in a basically good voting record and set of positions on a lot of issues--far better than Specter.

I do say that Santorum did the wrong thing supporting Specter against Toomey, but that's just not disqualifying. I saw Santorum referred to negatively as a "Specter fanboy" on the page of a conservative blog (a conservative blog I like a good deal, actually, which is why I'm not giving the exact citation here), and it's that sort of retrospective bitterness against Santorum that this post was directed against.

I'd argue that there are certain features of modernity, necessary ones in fact, that deserve condemnation, not just critique. Its Rousseauian anthropology, for instance. True conservatives can make no peace with that element.

There's no question that there are certain features of every age that deserve condemnation. I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with that. But you're arguing quite broadly that it can be condemned on the very notion of freedom. You argue expansively, and then say "hey can't anything be criticized?" Sure, but what is your notion of freedom so I can see if it is distinctly unique from mine or whatever one you are condemning as "the poison at the root."

Well anyway, I'm now reading "The Theological Origins of Modernity," since you recommended it so highly. It makes the case that modernity isn't characterized by anti-religious sentiment, as many have supposed, and has a large role for nominalism as I've already noted and agreed with. Well the book has merit as far as identifying certain philosophical and theological historical developments in general outline, but is very confused in critical places in amazing and obvious ways. From the outset he trots out the canard that the Greeks had no concept of will, offers up a very poor understanding of how the ancients understood happiness, and seems not to credit anything to the middle-knowledge position that is quite comfortable defending the position that there is no contradiction between God's sovereignty and man's freewill, the latter one of the supposed scary contradictions of Christianity in his terms. He saws he wants to rethink the relationship between faith and reason, but doesn't give any indication that he can help. Yet the Church has been doing this for a couple of thousand years, and he seems not to credit any of their efforts.

It is just very confused on the major points you wish to use him to make. To your point that, presumably, Gillespie has meaningful things to say about how modern understandings of freedom went wrong at and because of the modern period, it is filled with some real howlers. The book is certainly not without merit, certainly as a genealogy of certain ideas as others have pointed out, but it is so exasperatingly vague, general, and sloppy to the point of incoherence on some points that after the first chapter I began to think I was wasting my time and went looking for reviews to see what others thought. Here's a good one by a scholar from Notre Dame that expresses my frustration with it.

This book is a cautionary tale about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. His main points are well taken, but it is a deeply confused and confusing book, and he isn't up to the task of tying it all together, and sometimes you can't help but wonder how a guy so smart can express critical things in such pedestrian ways. He says Christianity rested on "an ontological connection of God and man" in some scary way, whereas Islam understood an "absolute difference and thus on the necessity of submission of finite men to a finite God." Wow. This is a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. He seems to have no knowledge of Christianity and the ancient understanding of the ineffability of God. On their consequent use of negative theology (the dissimilarity so great that describing what God isn't is more informative than describing what he is) as a limited human attempt to bridge the gap. All centuries before Islam was a gleam in Mohammed's eye. He should go read "The Cloud of Unknowing."

The epilogue, as the author of the review I linked said, is_simply_astounding_. Astounding. He explicitly casts doubt on the idea that divine unity and justice can be reconciled with God's omnipotence. Is there anything that this guy knows for sure? He has a sympathy with those who think this is blasphemous -- the Islamicists. You see, Christianity doesn't posit a "radical omnipotence," whereas Islam does. Got that? And, just tossing in stuff now, he thinks that Christianity itself has liberalizing tendencies --that are bad. Wanna guess what those are? And he keeps on insisting that we misunderstand Islam? Not more than he misunderstands Christianity, the relationship of faith to reason, the nature of God, and on and on. He is not theologically astute in any way.

This is a deeply disturbing book, and a cautionary tale on how far wrong smart people can go. It is a useful book about certain strains of historical ideas, but only when taken with care and even then one must walk through a minefield of bad ideas in the process and know how to pick out the bad ones. Those interesting in reading this book would be well advised to read the epilogue first. It will help you to know how much confidence to place in the author. I have never read an epilogue so misguided in my life.

No more from me in this thread. Way off-topic, but this is a deeply disturbing book and I'd hate to think someone would be led astray by the recommendation it received.

A lot of Republicans supported Santorum, even though the establishment told them Romney is the inevitable nominee. I wonder how much of the victory can be attributed to Romney care and how much can be attributed to conservative Christians finally recognizing that Santorum is closer to their mindset then is Romney and Gingrich.

More later, but after an initial "skim-read" and a partially complete close read I'm not finding Gillespie nearly as problematic as you are. I have not, however, read the epilogue so I will skip ahead and do that.

"There's no question that there are certain features of every age that deserve condemnation"

I'm not seeing the Enlightenment as an "age" but as an intellectual movement or trend. That its anthropology was fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, and in a very damaging and corrosive way that affected future thought, is my primary concern.

By the way, I first became interested in Gillespie's book via a review I read awhile ago in (I think) First Things. That reviewer, if I remember correctly, found the book flawed but valuable. I was initially interested in it because of its treatment of nominalism (I subsequently bought Taylor's Secular Age also, but haven't read it yet.)

The nominalism connection is a common one, and not particularly controversial. That is a classic understanding. But the issues the book deals with are far beyond that, and you need to be well versed in philosophy to deal with them. I would recommend Gillespies' book for those who really want to grapple with the issues in a very long-term fashion because it is provocative. Some books are deeply flawed, but even the more useful for it. I'd say Gillespies is one of those books. Sometimes you can learn more negatively than positively, and in making errors a lot is revealed to a reflective person. But it isn't the kind of book to recommend for those who don't get all that.

Book reviewers will always emphasize the positive and use understated language to point out the most egregious flaws, as they should.

Gillespie's account of the long-range consequences of nominalism is compelling and important, but the defense of his overall thesis and his suggestions for contemporary application are surprisingly underdeveloped. It is true that the modern dispute over freedom and necessity had, as a matter of historical fact, its roots in various theological controversies. But, is this a historical accident? Why exactly should the contemporary debate over this issue take heed of these historical antecedents? These are questions Gillespie neither asks nor answers.

As I said, what he says about nominalism is not particularly controversial, and I agree with it. But our dispute isn't about that. If you'd switch to condemning nominalism instead of modernity and/or the Enlightenment we'd have no argument. But you make far more sweeping claims, and Gillespie unknowingly points to the problem by his rehashing of the freewill debate, which I regard to be a philosophical account of the commonsense view that was eloquently described by the middle-knowledge position of Molina. Gillespie seem to love pointing out difficult theoretical questions, but doesn't seem to want to acknowledge satisfying answers that the Western world seems uniquely capable of producing. He seems to favor cultures and methods that flirt with the anti-rational.

You recommended the book to me, but I have a background in philosophy and I know all the issues he discusses (except some of the Kantian references since I've not gotten that far yet) and I don't see that I can learn anything about modernity as you seemed to think I would. What I can learn from the book is some nuances about the historical development of the problem, but nothing that bears on our dispute. Which is, whether or not modernity has a "fundamentally and irrevocably flawed" anthropology, or whether a correct anthropology is that mankind is flawed himself, such that no theoretical system could solve it. I am of the latter view. That said, I do not accept any sort of "total depravity" view of mankind, which is deeply flawed. But we don't need a perfect theoretical framework and there are none anyway because we have a limited ability to see reality and man's nature is such that that a perfect system would soon be corrupted by us in any case. You need to find the problem external to man, much like a modern Liberal always searching for the correct education program. I think mankind is redeemable, whereas you don't think Western culture is redeemable. My view is that Western culture as it has been handed down to us is serviceable. It has problems that are excesses, but not any more problems and excesses than any of the previous ones had. Mankind now has more destructive powers at his disposal, but that is another issue. Your criticism is purely idealistic, as if there were some pre-modern and/or pre-Enlightenment alternative open to us. All we can do is try to counter and reform the excesses we see in their detail, whereas sweeping anti-modern, anti-Enlightenment, or anti-anything projects are not helpful. Rather they are a nihilistic cry for purity that is destructive, and way too easy to make.

Mmmm ha, now we're starting to get somewhere -- meat instead of milk. My training is in church history and historical theology, not philosophy, and that may affect the way I see these things. In any case I'll respond to this post in detail later today.

In short, suffice to say that I am in no sense an idealist, neither go I believe in any golden age. I do, however, believe that in a certain sense there are pre-modern/pre-Enlightenment alternatives open to us.

"[Western culture] has problems that are excesses, but not any more problems and excesses than any of the previous ones had."

This is our fundamental disagreement. I believe that the nominalist revolution changed everything in a foundational, radical way that had no precedent. The negative elements of the Enlightenment were a result of nominalist thought coming to a head. Man's humanistic and scientific gains masked a far deeper philosophical and moral loss.

"If you'd switch to condemning nominalism instead of modernity and/or the Enlightenment we'd have no argument."

If the negative aspects of modernity and the Enlightenment are the result of nominalist thinking then the connection must be examined.

"Which is, whether or not modernity has a 'fundamentally and irrevocably flawed' anthropology, or whether a correct anthropology is that mankind is flawed himself, such that no theoretical system could solve it. I am of the latter view."

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"That said, I do not accept any sort of 'total depravity' view of mankind"

Ditto.

"Your criticism is purely idealistic, as if there were some pre-modern and/or pre-Enlightenment alternative open to us."

There is, and it's not idealistic. The alternative is to immerse oneself in the Church Fathers and pre-modern philosophers to the extent that one as much as possible acquires their mind. Start trying to think like Augustine, Basil, Maximos Confessor and Aquinas instead of Occam, Locke, Descartes and Kant.

"All we can do is try to counter and reform the excesses we see in their detail, whereas sweeping anti-modern, anti-Enlightenment, or anti-anything projects are not helpful."

Actually both are necessary -- attending too much to detail is polishing the brass on a sinking ship. Paying attention only to the big picture makes us subject to a death of a thousand cuts. Some of us will be "big picture" guys while others will be nuts-and-bolts oriented. Resisting the modernist Leviathan requires both.

By the way, I read Gillespie's epilogue twice and found nothing disturbing there. Now I must admit I know very little about Islam, and I don't agree with everything he writes about Christianity, but there was nothing there that remotely made my heart stop, as it seems to have with you.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.